Back
1959 Supreme(P&H) 69
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
I. D. DUA, J.
Dalip Singh Arjan Singh
Versus
Rakha Ram L. Munshi Ram
Second Appeal No. 54 of 1959
Decided On : 21-04-1959
H.S. Gujral, for Appellant; Rajindar Nath Aggarwal, for Respondent.
A classification based on the date of construction of buildings for the purpose of exemption from rent control legislation is rational and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 3 - NOTIFICATION EXEMPTING CERTAIN BUILDINGS FROM THE ACT - VALIDITY - CLASSIFICATION BASED ON DATE OF CONSTRUCTION - RATIONAL BASIS - NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Rakha Ram, filed a suit for possession of a shop in Ludhiana, claiming exemption from the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, based on a notification issued by the Punjab Government exempting buildings constructed in the year 1955. The defendant, Dalip Singh, resisted the suit, contending that the shop was constructed in 1956 and therefore not exempt from the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court found that the shop was constructed in 1956 and therefore not exempt from the Act. However, both courts upheld the validity of the notification exempting buildings constructed during the years 1956, 1957, and 1958.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred under the provisions of the Urban Rent Restriction Act? 2. Whether the notice served on the defendant was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification exempting buildings constructed during the years 1956, 1957, and 1958 was valid and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the classification based on the date of construction was rational and had a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which it was proposed. The court also held that the State Government had the power to exempt certain buildings from the operation of the Act in order to encourage the construction of buildings and address the shortage of housing.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower courts.
The tenancy was for 11 months beginning from 1-8-1956 to 30-6-1957. The rent originally was Rs. 22/- per month which was later increased to Rs. 25/- P. M. The defendant-appellant did not vacate the shop after the expiry of 11 months, the original period of tenancy, whereupon the plaintiff served him with a notice to vacate the same by midnight of 31-3-1958. This notice was received by the defendant on 27-2-1958.
As the defendant did not vacate the shop by the date stated in the notice, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for possession on 29-4-1958. Exemption from the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was claimed by the plaintiff in view of a notification, issued in that behalf, by the Punjab Government in respect of the buildings constructed in the year 1955 which, according to the plaintiff, was the year when the shop in question was built.
This suit was resisted by the defendant who denied that the shop had been built in 1955 and pleaded that it was actually constructed in 1956. On this ground he contended that the suit was barred by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The validity of the notice of ejectment was also assailed by him. The following issues were settled on the pleadings of the parties:
1. Whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Urban Rent Restriction Act?
2. Whether the notice served on the defendant is valid?
On issue No. 1, the trial Court after reproducing verbatim the notification dated 29-12-1955 observed that the building in suit was built in 1956 and therefore exempt from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It appears that the relevant notification exempted all buildings constructed during the years 1956, 1957 and 1958. In view of this notification the Court gave an express finding that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, did not apply to the shop in suit. Under issue No. 2 the Court upheld the validity of the notice.
2. On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge observed that the finding upon the question of the validity of the notice of ejectment had not been assailed before him. What was contended before the lower Appellate Court was that sufficient opportunity had not been granted to the defendant-appellant to adduce evidence to show that the building in question had been completed in 1956.
For this contention reliance was placed on notification No. 10665-LB-53/957 dated 19-1-1957, by which the Governor of Punjab exempted for a period of 5 years, from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, all buildings constructed in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955. The lower appellate Court, while dealing with this argument, also took notice of the notification No. 9186-LB (CH)-55/35123 dated 29-12-1955, published in the Punjab Gazette Extraordinary dated 31-12-1955, whereby the Governor of Punjab had exempted all buildings constructed during the years 1956, 1957 and 1958 from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for a period of 5 years, with effect from the date of the completion of such building, and observed that the combined effect of the two notifications was that the building in dispute was exempt from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act whether it was constructed in 1955 as was the plaintiffs case, or in 1956, as was contended by the defendant. On this finding the appeal was dismissed.
3. On second appeal, Mr. Gujral, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, has contended that the notification, issued after the com
